Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I yield the time.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut be recognized following the disposition of the business the Chair has.

Mr. President, prior to his beginning a speech, it is my understanding the two leaders have some business they want to conduct.

Following their conducting of business, I ask on the Democratic side Senator Dodd be recognized for 20 minutes; following that, on our side, Senator Kennedy for 30 minutes, Senator Durbin for 20 minutes, Senator Jeffords for 8 minutes, Senator Sarbanes for 20 minutes, Senator Harkin for 45 minutes. He has 2 hours under the order that has been entered, but he said he would use part of that time at a later time today. Senator Cantwell for 8 minutes and Senator Harkin for 1 hour and 15 minutes. We correct that. After Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein be recognized for 10 minutes.

Senator Kyl has already worked out something with Senator Dodd that he would be recognized for up to 3 minutes prior to Senator Dodd. The Republicans, of course, would be interspersed if they are here and they want to take time and we would go back and forth.

Mr. President, if I may, everyone is anxious to speak today. We have an order entered. Senator Harkin is willing to give up his time of 45 minutes. He will do the bulk of his time after basically everyone has completed their statements today. In exchange for that, I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to speak after Senator Kennedy for 10 minutes and then his hour and 50 minutes would be at the end of the day. I think that is fair. I appreciate everyone's patience. Also following Senator Cantwell, Senator Byrd on our side, will be recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today explicitly reaffirms each State's right to regulate hunting and fishing.

I am pleased that Senators Ben Nelson, Conrad Burns, and Ted Stevens are joining me in sponsoring this important bill.

This is a Nevada issue, but it is also a national issue, as a recent Federal circuit court ruling undermines traditional hunting and fishing laws.

In Conservation Force v. Dennis Manning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that State laws that distinguish between State residents and non-residents for the purpose of affording hunting and related privileges are constitutionally suspect.

This threatens the conservation of wildlife resources and recreational opportunities.

Although the Ninth Circuit found the purposes of such regulation to be sound, the Court questioned the validity of tag limits for non- resident hunters.

I respect the authority of States to enact laws to protect their legitimate interests in conserving fish and game, as well as providing opportunities for State residents to hunt and fish.

That's what this legislation says--we respect that State right.

Sportsmen are ardent conservationists. They support wildlife conservation not only through the payment of State and local taxes and other fees, but also through local non-profit conservation efforts and by volunteering their time.

For example, in Nevada there are great groups such as Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and the Fraternity of Desert Bighorn. These are dedicated sportsmen who spend countless hours, as well as money, building ``guzzlers'' in the desert, which help provide a reliable source of water for Desert Bighorn Sheep.

Without these efforts it would be extremely hard for the Bighorn Sheep to survive, because many areas of their natural habitat where they used to drink water have been developed.

Today, Southern Nevada is in the 5th year of a 500 year drought, and the work of the groups I mentioned is saving the lives of hundreds of bighorns.

The involvement of local sportsmen in protecting and conserving wildlife is one of the facts that justifies traditional resident/non- resident distinctions, and provides the motivation for our legislation.

The regulation of wildlife is traditionally within a State's purview, and

this legislation simply affirms the traditional role of States in the regulation of fish and game.

This bill is time sensitive.

This bill needs to pass before next year's hunting season begins.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to expedite passage of this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today explicitly reaffirms each State's right to regulate hunting and fishing.

I am pleased that Senators Ben Nelson, Conrad Burns, and Ted Stevens are joining me in sponsoring this important bill.

This is a Nevada issue, but it is also a national issue, as a recent Federal circuit court ruling undermines traditional hunting and fishing laws.

In Conservation Force v. Dennis Manning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that State laws that distinguish between State residents and non-residents for the purpose of affording hunting and related privileges are constitutionally suspect.

This threatens the conservation of wildlife resources and recreational opportunities.

Although the Ninth Circuit found the purposes of such regulation to be sound, the Court questioned the validity of tag limits for non- resident hunters.

I respect the authority of States to enact laws to protect their legitimate interests in conserving fish and game, as well as providing opportunities for State residents to hunt and fish.

That's what this legislation says--we respect that State right.

Sportsmen are ardent conservationists. They support wildlife conservation not only through the payment of State and local taxes and other fees, but also through local non-profit conservation efforts and by volunteering their time.

For example, in Nevada there are great groups such as Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and the Fraternity of Desert Bighorn. These are dedicated sportsmen who spend countless hours, as well as money, building ``guzzlers'' in the desert, which help provide a reliable source of water for Desert Bighorn Sheep.

Without these efforts it would be extremely hard for the Bighorn Sheep to survive, because many areas of their natural habitat where they used to drink water have been developed.

Today, Southern Nevada is in the 5th year of a 500 year drought, and the work of the groups I mentioned is saving the lives of hundreds of bighorns.

The involvement of local sportsmen in protecting and conserving wildlife is one of the facts that justifies traditional resident/non- resident distinctions, and provides the motivation for our legislation.

The regulation of wildlife is traditionally within a State's purview, and

this legislation simply affirms the traditional role of States in the regulation of fish and game.

This bill is time sensitive.

This bill needs to pass before next year's hunting season begins.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to expedite passage of this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, while the majority leader is on the floor, as the leader knows, we had a difficult time working things out last night and so I would ask that the 10 minutes we have used here this morning which would push the vote to right about 10 after 1, that we have these times locked in. I think that would be appropriate, so I ask unanimous consent that everything slide 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana has 30 minutes under her control that is supposed to start about 11:40.

With the consent of the Senate, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana from the time of Senator Dorgan, who will not use his time, and I would ask unanimous consent that her time begin now.

Senator Harkin has 5 minutes, so I will yield Senator Harkin's 5 and Senator Dorgan's 5 to her, and her time will start running now, for a total of 40 minutes.

Mr. President, Senator Harkin still has 5 minutes.

Senator Harkin has 5 minutes under the order.

Mr. President, when we started this morning we asked unanimous consent that the time that was taken by the leader would be agreed to. That was clearly in the Record. Would the Parliamentarian confirm that?

Is that right, how much time Senator Harkin has left?

How much time does Senator Harkin have?

I don't understand that. Why did we lose that time?

Senator Graham will need 5 minutes, so I ask unanimous consent that he get 3 minutes and Senator Grassley get an extra 3 minutes. So that will give Senator Graham 2 minutes of Harkin's time plus the 3 minutes that I have asked be on our side and 3 minutes extra on Senator Grassley's side.

Yes.

Mr. President, the Senate FSC-ETI bill contained $19 billion in energy tax incentives that supported the diversification of the Nation's energy supply, conservation, and efficiency.

Although few of those provisions survived the House-Senate conference, I am pleased that the conference report extends and expands the Section 45 production tax credit for renewable energy resources.

My thanks to Senators Grassley and Baucus, as well as 36 Senators who recently joined me in a letter to conferees urging the adoption of this very important renewable-energy provision.

The Section 45 production tax credit works.

Siince its initial adoption in 1992, wind energy has become the fastest growing energy source in the world.

Other renewable energy resources like geothermal, solar and biomass energy will now be able to enjoy that same growth potential.

We know that renewable energy can provide a steady supply of electricity that is made in the USA.

We know it will spur economic investment and new technology, and create thousands of jobs.

According to the Department of Energy, tripling geothermal production by the year 2010 would stimulated $61 billion of domestic investment, create 1.6 million person-years of new employment, and add $180 million to State and Federal government treasuries from royalties.

The Western Governors Association projects the Department of Energy's initiative to deploy 1,000 megawatts of concentrating solar power in the southwestern area of the United States would create approximately 7,000 jobs and estimated expenditures of more than $2 billion in the next decade.

We know it can protect our environment and reduce global warming. And we know it can help reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

The renewable energy resource is unlimited.

Once we build the facilities, the fuel is free.

In simple terms, ``batteries are included'' with renewable energy facilities.

The sun will shine for a billion years, the wind will blow as long as our planet survives, and the heat of the Earth is the most abundant resource in the world.

My State and many others are rich in renewable energy.

Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of Geothermal energy.

I am proud that Nevada has set some of the highest goals in the Nation for developing renewable energy. We are going to steadily increase our electricity generated from renewable sources toward a goal of 15 percent by 2013.

The Section 45 provision in the FSC-ETI bill is an important step on the road to diversifying the Nation's energy supply by increasing our use of renewable energy resources, but our job is not done.

This provision only extends the Section 45 production tax credit for 15 months.

We need to extend the Section 45 production tax credit for renewable energy resources from 15 months to a minimum of 5 years.

It is also important that we work to include tradeable credits to public power utilities and rural electric cooperatives, which serve 25 percent of the Nation's power customers, by allowing them to transfer their credits to taxable entities.

I will work to make that happen in the next session of Congress.

Once again, I want to thank the managers of this bill for shepherding the expansion and extension of the Section 45 production tax credit in this legislation.

We must diversify our Nation's energy portfolio with clean, renewable energy resources. We must accept this commitment for the energy security of the U.S., for the protection of our environment, and for the health of the American people.

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from California, (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent.

Will the Senator yield?

Through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, I have a State that is rapidly growing. It has, as you know, the tourism interests and the mining, and we have some ranching. There is limited agriculture, but we have some. But the State of Iowa is agricultural based. It is hard for a lot of us who come from big cities to understand. Nevada is the most urban State in the Union, with Las Vegas and Reno making up about 90 percent of the population. So it is hard for a lot of us to understand the passion that someone like Tom Harkin has for farming and farmers. It is hard for me to understand that. But I have come to learn the passion and the depth of feeling that the junior Senator from Iowa has about farmers and farming--agricultural matters.

I hope the people of Iowa have some understanding, which I know they do, about how you fight for farmers, family farmers. I have learned a lot about family farmers because of listening to the Senator talk. It is not only listening to him talk, it is how he talks. I think it is so good that we have in this body people like Tom Harkin, who believe in something, who have a knowledge of agriculture, but not only is it a broad-brush knowing a lot about agriculture, you care about the people who are involved in it.

What we have gone through in the last few days--and when I say gone through, as I told Senator Harkin as I was going home last night, I had a Harkin headache--I feel good being one of 100 here and knowing that I serve with people like Tom Harkin who believes so deeply in a subject. Not only does he express, personally, his feelings, he wants everyone here to know.

When the history books are written about agriculture and what has happened legislatively with agriculture, Tom Harkin's chapter in that book will be in bold print.

I don't know much about this program that Senator Harkin feels so strongly about, but I was there when he got it done. And I know how good he felt about having accomplished this farming conservation. I have some understanding of what it is but not the knowledge that Senator Harkin has--how he felt about this. When this was accomplished, it was like somebody hit a home run. I have had some legislative victories and I know how good it feels. And I know how bad it feels when someone tries to take that away from you. That is what has happened here, a legislative victory that is significantly important to the farmers of this country, in Tom Harkin's mind. He proved to me that people were trying to take that away from him. And by taking it away from him, they were taking it away from American farmers.

So I say to my friend, Senator Harkin, thank you very much for being a believer, for being a believer in something that is important to this country, family farms.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

When does the name of the committee change officially? The name of the committee now is Governmental Affairs. We changed the name yesterday, did we not? Will it change in the new Congress? I wanted to know.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

No objection.

You could do it tomorrow, too.

That is right.

I mentioned off the microphones today to the two leaders, an hour or so ago, we are here on a Sunday and our dear friend, the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, talked about the Sabbath and we were all so impressed with his remarks, but I say that if there ever were a time legislatively when the ox was in the mire, it was this weekend. But for our being here as a result of the work of the two leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, we would not have completed the people's business.

We basically have done that tonight. Tomorrow we come in for some formalities: the FSC bill; cloture was invoked today and it will pass tomorrow and that is our only recorded vote. So I want the Record to reflect that Senators Daschle and Frist are the two leaders for a good reason. It is very hard to get where we are, and we all have apologized on a number of occasions for having to come in on Sunday. It is a rare occasion we do that. But I repeat, the ox was in the mire. We had to do that. The ox is out of the mire,

and whether we do that on Sunday or Monday, I believe that is the appropriate thing to do.

I know the Chair will join with me in saying, these people here are glassy-eyed. They have worked so long and so hard. The Capitol Police, the official reporters, the enrolling clerks, the Parliamentarians, everyone here has worked so hard. Our staff has worked tireless hours. We are the ones who are here and people see us, but they see mere shells of what we would be but for their great work. They protect us. They cover for us. The mistakes we make, they find them and come back and correct legislation. So I want everyone who is here to know how much we appreciate what they do. They get so little attention. It is all of us who get the attention and we are the ones who depend on them so much. I know the majority leader joins me in this.

Mr. President, we have a number of amendments that are still outstanding. We disposed of the Frist amendment this morning, and we still have Collins, Nickles, Hutchison, Bingaman, and Rockefeller that are in order. I don't know if they are going to offer all of those amendments, but we have 1 hour and 5 minutes until we start voting. Everyone should understand, as I understand the order entered, a half hour over the next 65 minutes is for Senator Harkin. So we have 35 minutes to debate these amendments. If they are not debated, we will start voting on them.

I think it would be unfortunate if people had to act on amendments without hearing something from someone. I hope they will either withdraw the amendments or present them. It puts Senator McConnell and me in an awkward position when the amendments are in order and nobody is here to offer them. It is not fair to the Senate that there is not someone who lets us know whether they are going to be withdrawn or be offered, because some of the subject matter of the amendments is not very clear, as least to this Senator.

I have been told the Rockefeller amendment is not going to be offered.

The Collins amendment is withdrawn?

It is not pending, so I ask that it be deleted from our list because it is on the list of amendments that was entered into last night. So we still have the Nickles, Hutchison, and Bingaman amendments.

On behalf of Senator Bingaman, I ask permission to withdraw from the list the Bingaman-Domenici amendment as listed.

Mr. President, for my friend to say the jurisdiction of the committee has been stripped out in the last few days, he should come in contact with reality. It simply is not true. How many times people come and say that does not make it true. The governmental affairs/homeland security committee is going to be one of most powerful committees in the Congress. Last year, as I understand, they had about 900 bills referred to them. This next year, it will probably be 3,000 bills referred to them. They have jurisdiction over wide-ranging matters. A few little things have been taken from Governmental Affairs, but they have been given a truckload of stuff.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I serve on the Appropriations Committee with the distinguished Senator from Texas. She certainly is one of the finest Senators here. But on this issue I disagree with her. In the underlying legislation before the Senate, there has been a consolidation of Defense appropriations and Military Construction. This certainly makes sense. The subject matter is related to the same players, same departments, military, same basis. It does not make sense to make the artificial divide for Construction. I have served as chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, and I enjoyed it, but I always wondered why it was a separate subcommittee.

It does, however, make sense to pull intelligence from defense and make it a separate subcommittee. That is what we have done. We have talked to experts, and we think this is the best way to do it. We should keep this plan intact. It is the right thing to do.

The legislation we now have before the Senate is a good package. I don't think it should be splintered with trying to have the Committee on Appropriations rearrange what we have done.

Mr. President, I would like the record to reflect that when I spoke regarding Senator Voinovich earlier, I said there were approximately 900 bills referred to the Governmental Operations Committee. I misspoke. It is 300. I want the record to reflect the proper number.

Mr. President, I believe we need the yeas and nays on the Nickles amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent.

I am sorry, I couldn't hear that.

I ask the Senator to modify his request to allow 1 minute on each side prior to voting on the Hutchison amendment.

Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission is watching what we are doing. We have created an intelligence subcommittee on Appropriations. That was very difficult to do. But we did it. The consolidation of Defense appropriations and Military Construction makes sense. The subject matters are related, with the same players and same departments. It is military. It doesn't make sense to create an artificial divide different than this one.

The Appropriations Committee as it stands has all kinds of authority to organize within itself.

In short, we have done the work of the Senate. It is the right thing to do. It sets forth something that Governor Kean says makes sense.

I hope we will defeat this amendment and keep intact what we already have.

Mr. President, does the Senator from Texas wish to have a rollcall vote?

I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated and there be a voice vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am wondering if Senators would give consideration to maybe not having the vote on cloture.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I am wondering--I made this statement earlier--if we could vitiate the necessity of having a cloture vote on this matter.

Mr. President, I understand there is no request that we vote on this.

Mr. President, Section 101(b) contains the jurisdiction for the new Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Section 101(b)(1) refers to the new jurisdiction of the new committee. The rest of Section 101(b) and all of Section 101(c) describes the existing jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee and is not intended to make any changes to existing practice nor precedence regarding referrals on those issues with regard to other committees.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair, what is remaining on this legislation?

I ask unanimous consent that that be vitiated.

Mr. President, it is now my understanding the resolution is left?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.